RAMA KANT MISHRA Vs. SHAHUJI MAHARAJ KANPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole petitioner, an Advocate practising at Kanpur by this public interest litigation challenged admission of students in the Institute of Engineering and Technology for the session 1996-97 and for declaring the decision of Shri Shahu Ji Maharaj Kanpur University, Kanpur (for short, Kanpur University) to run the Institute of Engineering and Technology as ultra vires.

(2.) AT the outset, the respondents raised objection as regards maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of sole petitioner. As regards maintainability, the first objection is that the petitioner, herein, is not entitled to file the present public interest litigation as he has no locus standi and no evidence was disclosed that the petitioner had any Interest in the field of education much less in technical education. It is also said that no material has been disclosed as to how the sole petitioner, herein, could take up the cause of students and the guardians.

(3.) ON the question of locus standi and the right to maintain public interest litigation, law has undergone substantial change. The Initial view on the question of locus standi to maintain a writ petition as decided in the case of State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal, AIR 1952 SC 12 ; Veerappa v. Raman & Raman. AIR 1952 SC 192 ; Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044, was not followed after Innovation of concept of public interest litigation. There came a distinct departure from the age-old concept of 'locus standi and 'persons aggrieved'. Thereafter new concept of locus standi and the public interest litigation started crystaltsing in the case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhal Faizullabhai, AIR 1976 SC 1455 and Fertilizer Corporation Kanpur Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344. The position was made further clear In the case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, when the public spirited practising Advocates were permitted to approach the law court In public Interest to vindicate constitutional or legal rights of determinate class of society. The concept has been further developed In various cases including People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 (popularly known as Asiad Case), Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 ; Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, AIR 1987 SC 38 ; Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 2211 and Janta Dal v. H. S. Chaudhary, AIR 1993 SC 892. The decision in the case of Krishna Swami (supra) being different on facts and relevant consideration, does not apply here.